A human-caused climate change signal emerges from the noise

By comparing simulations from 20 different computer models to satellite observations, Lawrence Livermore climate scientists and colleagues from 16 other organizations have found that tropospheric and stratospheric temperature changes are clearly related to human activities.

All very interesting, but the study fails to address two very fundamental issues:

Contrary to all the predictions by the computer models, there has been no global warming for the past sixteen years; global temperatures have plateaued.

While global temperatures have plateaued, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has continued to increase, and carbon dioxide emissions are said to have increased by more than 54% over the past twenty two years.

So, on the one hand carbon dioxide continues to be pumped into the atmosphere, on the other global temperatures are unaffected.Since it is clearly obvious that atmospheric carbon dioxide has minimal, if any, bearing on climate change, how do these “scientists” reconcile their conclusions with reality?

Your reply isn't germane, because they weren't looking specifically at co2's role. They were looking for other human caused telltales and separating those causes from natural cause variations in the data. You might want to read the article again.

Your reply isn't germane, because they weren't looking specifically at co2's role. They were looking for other human caused telltales and separating those causes from natural cause variations in the data. You might want to read the article again.

Your reply isn't germane, because they weren't looking specifically at co2's role. They were looking for other human caused telltales and separating those causes from natural cause variations in the data. You might want to read the article again.

Try connecting the dots.

I did and the article still doesn't address specifically co2's role in climate change. That's your best rebuttal ? C'mon Canuck aren't you going to tell us these people aren't real scientists or proffer up someone, Watts et al commentary ? The evidence keeps mounting for human caused change contrasting your side which offers absolutely no convincing evidence theses changes are absolutely natural variations. Do you really find it implausible and impossible that 7 billion +people in the strongest terms possible for you to express cannot have any influence on climate ? Really, is that what you believe ?

You really should spend more time reading up on the subject; it you were to do so, you may come to understand the hypothesis relating human generated carbon dioxide and upper atmospheric temperature stratification. More importantly, you may come to understand why the subject is so controversial.

But then again, even after all this time, you haven’t figured out the difference between AGW and climate change; so it is probably too much to expect you to take the time to understand some of the technical complexities of atmospheric physics.

On the other hand, you do seem to have developed a pretty fair grasp of climate politics. I notice how you applied the well established propaganda tactic of changing the argument when your original argument is discredited.

Specifically, while the original argument used to be about the climate effects of human generated carbon dioxide, you have managed to morph it into the impact of the size of the human population.

You really should spend more time reading up on the subject; it you were to do so, you may come to understand the hypothesis relating human generated carbon dioxide and upper atmospheric temperature stratification. More importantly, you may come to understand why the subject is so controversial.

But then again, even after all this time, you haven’t figured out the difference between AGW and climate change; so it is probably too much to expect you to take the time to understand some of the technical complexities of atmospheric physics.

On the other hand, you do seem to have developed a pretty fair grasp of climate politics. I notice how you applied the well established propaganda tactic of changing the argument when your original argument is discredited.

Specifically, while the original argument used to be about the climate effects of human generated carbon dioxide, you have managed to morph it into the impact of the size of the human population.

A deft move! Herr Goebbels would be proud.

I didn't morph it into anything. My position has always been from the start humans are to some extent changing the climate. Co2 emissions where just one part.

It has been noted by me and I'm sure by other members you've not specifically rebutted this particular article either through knowledge you've learned or with the help of those true scientists. And you keep telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. I wonder the same about you. Have you notice when you rebut you bring no facts at all to the table. What you do bring is rhetoric and opinions of a tiny few persons that also deny humans can influence climate like Watts, McIntyre and Nova. The real crux of climate denial is the absolute unwillingness to consider humans can influence the climate. In other words absolutely all the occurring climate changes have naturally induced causes. That is your belief. I'm certain you will to the bitter end keep denying humans could and can influence climate.

It is true that I have made a number of assertions. You are free to accept the truth of those assertions, reject them, or conduct your own independent research regarding the content of those assertions.

However to date, your responses suggest that you are more inclined to accept assertions from authority than you are to conduct research or analysis of your own.

With respect to the paper above, the major issue with it is that it does not reconcile its conclusions with the reality of the fact that there has been no global warming for sixteen years. The authors are still silent on that point.

As Richard Feynman said many years ago; "If the theory doesn't agree with the experiment, the theory is wrong".

Similarly, you have evidently missed a very significant point in the discussion. Specifically, nobody disputes the fact that human activity has an influence on climate.

The specific issue is whether or not human generated carbon dioxide is a significant contributor to climate change.

To date, the overwhelming body of objective evidence answers “no”.

This fact is implicitly acknowledged by the warmist alarmists in the fact that they have changed the argument away from “global warming” to “climate change”.

So why do these warmist alarmists continue to push this barrow? Follow the money.

The gravy train of research grants to otherwise unemployable scientists rolls on; at Darfu, the delegates spent much of their time developing schemes by which corrupt third world countries can extort money from the developed nations for perceived injury suffered; GE and other big companies continue to rake in the cash for manufacturing environmentally destructive wind turbines; Chinese manufacturers produce huge quantities of toxic waste while manufacturing grossly inefficient solar panels; the Amazon rainforest continues to disappear, to be replaced by sugar plantations as feedstock for fuel alcohol; the Asian rainforests continue to be chopped down and replaced by palm oil plantations to produce the fuel for SUVs; etc; etc.

Don't be absurd you don't do analysis on your own. you rely on authority also. That authority is Watts Up and others just a post ago. On matters of science I do trust the scientists. I just don't trust people that deny science.

Well you seem to be wrong about there being no warming over the past 16 years.

It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information …

The UK Met Office emphasizes it did not say that global warming stopped 16 years ago. Here’s an excerpt from the UK Met Office regarding the October 13 Daily Mail article:

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming. As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

So … it is still warming after all. In fact, in a report released by the National Climatic Data Center this week, global land and ocean surface temperatures for the month of September 2012 tied with 2005 as the warmest September on record, at 0.67 degrees Celsius (1.21 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 20th century average of 15.0 degrees Celsius (59.0 degrees Fahrenheit). It appears that the rate of warming has slowed slightly at this time; in other words, at the moment, it’s not increasing in warmth as fast as it was. Temperatures remain at all-time highs since records began, however, and our warming climate continues to break its own records.http://earthsky.org/...op-16-years-ago

The fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was prematurely published on a blog called Stop Green Suicide by blogger Alec Rawls, who obtained the document as a reviewer. The draft report, which was still undergoing a peer review process, said that "there is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the earth system due to an imbalance in the energy budget." "It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance." Rawls drew attention to another part of the report about the effect of cosmic rays on global warming, saying in a statement that "admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything." However, this section had been taken out of context and could not be used to cast doubt on the idea that human activity is warming the globe, said Steve Sherwood, one of the authors of the report and Co-Director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales. "I think the most interesting aspect of how this has been blogged by the climate deniers is that it reveals how deeply in denial they are," he said in an email to The Conversation.